The Expendables

Whatever you may think of this film or Sylvester Stallone in general, you have to give Sly credit for getting together the throw back cast that he has for this. It's a good thing too, as if it wasn't for the intriguing cast this would probably have died a quick death. As it is though, its hit box office gold on both sides of the Atlantic as audiences have flocked to see Stallone, Lundren, Willis and Arnie flex their aching limbs one last time. However, the advertising has been a bit mis-leading as Willis and Schwarzenegger only appear in a cameo scene, albeit one that does finish with the film's funniest line. Therefore, the relatively whipper snapping Li and Statham step in to help with the carnage. In terms of acting it’s all pretty wooden, but Mickey Rourke has a surprising touching scene which appears to have been accidentally cut in from The Wrestler. As for the plot, it’s a rehash of an old favourite, but Stallone is only interested in one thing here guns, explosions and fighting, delivering it in spades. Though not on a scale of the gore-fest that was the last Rambo film, Stallone still lets it all go, especially during the ear-bleeding crazily edited last 30 minutes. This film will have a specific target audience and regardless of its quality that audience has coughed up the dough to see it. Therefore, if you want a quick nostalgia fix then this should do just about enough to entertain, but the over-riding emotion is one of a tired old formula that has had its time and I doubt the mooted follow up will make as much moolah as this one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Friday night fodder in extremis, but hardly anything cinematic or memorable. Rating: 5/10.

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore

This film has had some scathing reviews, but I'm not entirely sure why. It's a film about talking cats and dogs....its not meant to be Casablanca. Having said that there is only one audience for this and that is tiny tots or cat and dogs lovers up for some supreme silliness. If you're neither of that demographic then, OK, you really won't like this. For the rest you can enjoy an admittedly unoriginal plot (cats and dogs joining forces? Never!) that throws in mostly visuals gags via some CGI that ranges from amusingly good to amusingly bad. Of course, you can also play the guess the actor voicing the animal game, if you're up to the mark on the Hollywood C-List that is. The thing I found most interesting about this film though was the budget, $85 million. $85 million! Where has that money gone? Obviously this film is effects heavy, but I can't believe that it was to that tune of money. Unless the answer is that Chris O'Donnell demands a particularly expensive rider these days. So, this isn't good nor bad, but if you think this is rubbish because its not Inception, then you need a dog house all to your self.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Tough to rate this one, but I can't believe you won't get some enjoyment out of this if you're one of the above mentioned target audience. Rating: 6/10

Shrek Forever After

In relation to my comments regarding Toy Story 3 I approached Shrek Forever After with a certain degree of scepticism in respect of its 3D element. Is there really a massive clamour for a fourth Shrek film? Shouldn’t Dreamworks come up with something new? It’s possible the answers to the above were “No” and “Yes”, or at least, they were until Dreamworks thought of the big green they could make by having their big green up in gimmicky 3D for the first time. The storyline is by the numbers in which Shrek is tricked by Rumpelstiltskin into being an Ogre that people are terrified of again, but in return Shrek is transported to an alternate world where Rumpelstiltskin rules the land. Dreamworks stick with all the old characters, but nothing feels fresh here. This is highlighted by Rumpelstiltskin himself who is a cracking character but is sidelined by the regulars. This is a shame as Donkey et al fail to raise many laughs and many gags are recycled from previous films. In addition, where have all the wry homage’s and references to popular culture gone? If you’re a fan of the series you’ll get more out of this than most, but Shrek, bless ‘im, has had his time now and Dreamworks need to get back to the drawing board ASAP as Pixar have the upper hand at the moment based on the studios most recent outings of old friends.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Still enjoyable for fans, but this is an average farewell to a series that has lost its lustre, whilst still earning the lucre. Rating: 5/10

The Concert

Just by chance The Concert happened to be the third French film I saw in a row and though Heartbreaker is the meat in the sandwich, there’s enough in The Concert to be enjoyed as a slice on its own. Although this has been officially released as a French film, it’s collaboration between a few European countries, with France and Russia being the main players. This is hardly surprising though as the storyline concerns the Bolshoi ballet playing at a concert in Paris. Or at least, that’s what Andreï Filipov (Aleksei Guskov) would have the French believe. Filipov, a former conductor, is a cleaner at the Bolshoi Theatre, who fixes it so that his former orchestra plays in the Bolshoi’s place instead. Obviously you have to suspend disbelief somewhat for that premise, but director Radu Mihaileanu has a trick up his sleeve as he interweaves that story with Filipov’s relationship with expert violinist Anne-Marie Jacquet (Melanie Laurent). It’s a subtle blend of broad comedy and drama. I say broad comedy, as this film has some very dodgy national stereotyping. Even if it is a Franco-Russian alliance taking the mickey out of their own, it still feels a bit 1970’s sitcom at times. This film is all about the ending though when Filipov’s relationship with Jacquet is explained (albeit, somewhat unclearly) and Filipov’s orchestra perform. Though I can’t recall now how long they play for, the performance of the Violin Concerto in D major, Op 35 by Tchaikovsky is lengthy and utterly enthralling, giving the film one of the best feel good endings I can recall in a long time. If you’re not punching the air at the end you’ll at least be walking into the evening with a spring in step and a smile on your face.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A bit slow at times, but its simple charm will eventually win you over before its mesmerising finish. Rating: 7/10

Heartbreaker

What an unexpected gem this is. Knowing nothing before I went in, as I like to do, from my brief glance at the poster I was expecting a run of the mill romance. And a dull one at that from the trailer I had also seen. However, and this is what makes cinema so great, the best films just come out of nowhere. Heartbreaker tells the story of Alex (Romain Duris) the (glamorous) face of a small and secretive business that specialises in splitting up couples by showing the woman what might have been, though not by means of getting her into bed. Things go awry for Alex though when, due to rising debts, he accepts a seemingly impossible assignment to woo Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) before she weds Jonathan (Andrew Lincoln). Three problems though. One: The couple are in love and seemingly without problems, so this job goes against Alex’s beliefs. Two: Juliette initially ignores him. Three: Well, you can guess that anyway, surely? The best thing about this film is that everyone seems to be having a blast. A lot of kudos should go to first time director Pascal Chaumeil for this as he realises there’s no point playing anything straight here and just goes for broke laughs wise utilising visual gags, slapstick and one-liners (though some may find certain parts a little crude). Even Duris’ character is a wink to the audience because, despite his job as well, a heartbreaker, he goes from looking impossibly handsome to gormlessly dull in some scenes. The tricks of the trade that Alex uses in order to complete his tasks raise many titters and a scene where he comes to the aid of a car-jacked Juliette is a laugh out loud moment encapsulated not by dialogue, but by a tilted tracking shot by Chaumeil (his advertising background coming to the fore). The com definitely outweighs the rom in this one, but this is probably for the best as Paradis is somewhat bland throughout. The script also throws up a few unexpected turns including a small little twist at the end. On the negative side you may find the morals a bit dodgy and some back up characters fail to tickle the funny bone. Overall though this looks great, Duris is excellent (the running gag about him crying worth the price of admission alone) and it’s very very funny.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
More rom-COM then ROM-com, this is still charming enough to get away with its central premise due to a quotient of high laughter and it’s a film that both males and females can enjoy equally. Rating: 8/10.

Leaving

Catherine Corsini's Leaving begins with a bang. That being a shotgun fired by Kristin Scott Thomas in a plush home in the dead of night. However, we only hear said gunshot. Did she shoot someone? Something? Herself? To find out we then go back in time and pick up the story of Suzanne (Scott Thomas), a housewife in the south of France, who is on the verge of returning to work as a physiotherapist, only to begin an affair with a handyman (Ivan) which sets off a chain of events leading to the bullet firing ending/beginning. Despite this being a three hander it's Scott Thomas who hauls us through the emotional wringer with her performance as we see everything from her point of view. Interestingly, despite Suzanne's husband (played with authority by the ever reliable Yvan Attal) being a bit neglectful, there isn't much sympathy we actually give her for having an affair. However, as things start to go wrong for her and Ivan (admittedly via some contrived plotting), with their jobs not working out and her husband withholding his money from her, Scott Thomas' performance is so good she makes you feel sorry for. A scene where she desperately sells her watch for money at a petrol station is tragic. Corsini gets great mileage from Scott Thomas and a number of scenes in the film feel real and certainly believable due to the situations all three main characters find themselves in. However, Corsini doesn't move the story along at a quick enough pace. Fair enough if this was a two part TV series but not whilst you're sitting there thinking about the hard earned you've just spent. So, sex, drama, slow story, well acted. Hmm, did I mention this was a French film?


The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth watching for Scott Thomas alone, which just about makes up for Corsini's bland direction. Rating: 6/10.

Inception

You don’t get too many arguments, especially not from me, when Alfred Hitchcock is described as the world’s greatest director. By default, this also makes him the greatest British director of all time. In fifty years time though will Christopher Nolan have emerged as the new king deserving of said epitaph? A near flawless back catalogue has seen Nolan (rightly) decorated with praise left, right and centre since his early short films. Now comes the juggernaut that is Inception. Firstly, I should say that I’m reviewing this film having seen it twice. Not to “get” it mind you. The second time was an IMAX experience. However, it does make reviewing this film interesting as, much like Memento, you may get your head around it more second time round. For Inception though, whilst a second viewing means it can be enjoyed on a more comprehensive level, whether or not the film improves on a further viewing is open to debate. In terms of the complex plot we have Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, along with his team, enter the subconscious minds of sleeping targets and extract secretive information. However, after trying the trick on businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) he recruits them to attempt “inception” on a business rival of his. Inception being planting an idea in the subconscious instead of stealing one. Where it goes from here is impossible to explain, but it involves going into deeper sublevels of the subconscious, i.e. dreams within dreams. So, it’s bonkers right? Indeed. Is it any good though? Firstly, Nolan’s got himself a killer cast for this. Everyone pulls their weight, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy as members of DiCaprio’s crew. A shout out as well to Nolan fave Cillian Murphy as the businessman on who the inception is being attempted. The film falls mainly on DiCaprio’s shoulders though and he puts in a strong performance showing Cobb as a focused and driven individual, but one who has a permanent nagging doubt about it all at the back of his mind. In terms of Nolan’s direction this is as tight as you’d expect and the final sequence where the inception is attempted is expertly constructed as Nolan cross cuts backwards and forwards between characters in different levels of the subconscious all edited down to the exact final second to the conclusion of Cobb and Co’s mission. It’s a masterful moment. Throw in a pumping soundtrack from Hans Zimmer, and some fantastic effects, and you’ll feel that Nolan has triumphed again. And yet…..this isn’t Nolan’s best film, not by quite a bit. Though the sleight of hand is good, it lacks, apart from the final scene, the gut punch finale of The Prestige, it’s certainly not as entertaining as either of his Batman films and Memento gives a better example of a confusing film that can be unravelled into something coherent. That last point is going to be the sticking point for a lot of people. Is this just too smart for its own good? There’s certainly no right answer as to what conclusion you might draw from what you’ve just spent 150 minutes watching and some people might find that a con. If you’ve seen Last Year at Marienbad (which Nolan claims he hadn’t before he wrote this…really, Chris?) you’ll know where I’m coming from. Interestingly this is Nolan’s first completely original work since Following and by calling the main character Cobb, Nolan veterans may think they have the answer to all they have seen before them. My advice, and this includes the much talked about and cracking final scene, take from Inception what you want and leave it at that. It took Nolan ten years to do this film and even he has said there isn’t a said answer as to what you’ve just seen. A great film no doubt, but even better from Nolan surely awaits.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Nolan’s masterpiece? Not yet. His most entertaining film so far? Nope. One of the best films of the year? Definitely. Rating: 8/10.

Toy Story 3

Pixar's latest has been churning up the box office both sides of the pond since it's release. Hardly a surprise you may think, but John Lasseter will be more than happy when you consider that Toy Story 3 is easily the weakest of the Toy Story trilogy and that Toy Story 3 almost feels like a backward step, especially of terms of the animation, since the spectacular Up. So, why it's still raking in the bucks and quids? Two reasons: One, it's a Pixar film and it's still great. Two, it's in the dreaded 3D format. From memory I believe that Toy Story 2 was originally mooted to be a straight to video / DVD effort, but when Pixar realised what a gem they were developing it was pushed up to a cinema release and the rest is history. If anything, Toy Story 3 feels like the film that could have been straight to DVD. However, there's profit to be had, and when you attach the 3D aspect to the respected cash cow that is the Toy Story series, you're going to be rolling in it. Cynical? No doubt, but can you argue against it? In terms of the film, we now have Andy preparing to leave to go to college and due to a mix-up the majority of the toys find themselves at a day-care centre. Their initial joy at being played with again soon turns to horror as the tots daily rampage of destruction leaves them licking their wounds and thinking of the better times with Andy. The themes of this film are of loss, moving on and growing up. Interestingly it appears to be a film where your emotions will differ depending on whether you are a parent or not. Whilst the feeling of loss is meant to be in respect of toys being abandoned, it appeared to me to be more of a reference to the relationship between Andy and his mother and younger sister. Pixar has been accused at times of some cheese, which appeared to have been put to bed with the emotional punch that was Up. I'm not sure they can claim the problem hasn't resurfaced here. However, whilst you can almost accuse this of being Pixar by numbers, what numbers they are. Fantastic animation, scenes of joy and horror (the surely nightmare inducing for kids toy baby has to be seen to be believed), a hilarious running joke concerning Buzz's factory settings and the usual climatic edge of the seat chase scene finale mean it's another triumph for Pixar, if not quite reaching the heights of previous efforts.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Depending on your age and child status your enjoyment of this may vary. However, you will be entertained regardless as Pixar just never seem to make a bad film. Rating: 7/10.

Predators

The prospect of yet another Predator film is hardly going to entice people to part with their hard-earned, unless of course, said new film is a bit of cracker. Sadly Predators (see what they did there?) isn’t that film. Despite being in the fairly capable hands of Nimród Antal, this is hamstrung from the start by a feeling of déjà vu, a dodgy script and some even more dodgy acting. Having said that, it doesn’t actually start off all that bad as an unconscious Adrian Brody awakens to find himself in free fall, before a parachute deploys and he finds himself in a jungle on an unnamed planet. He is soon joined by a number of predator snacks, sorry additional cast members, and before long Brody and co are fighting an unknown and unseen enemy. The main problem the audience will have with this is that we already know what the predators are all about. So whilst the characters may be at a loss as to what the creatures are, the audience is already will versed in predator folklore. Therefore, there isn’t much originality to get excited about. It seems that even script writer Robert Rodriguiez was aware of this as the homage’s to the first film are many (and eventually, tiresome). Some exposition is attempted with the introduction of Lawrence Fishburne’s but his scenes are truly bizarre and Fishburne’s hamming has to be seen to be believed. He is not alone though, as a character twist by one of the other humans at the end is so unbelievable it will only provoke incredulous laughter. The only good thing to say is that this must surely be the end of all this nonsense once and for all as the only feeling you’ll have after watching this is the urge to watch the original film again in order to cleanse you of sequel guilt.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A film that just didn’t need to get the green light in the first place. Make’s Predator 2 look like Citizen Kane. Rating: 3/10.

Eclipse

I’m having more difficulty finding the time to fit in the film reviews these days so hurrah that Eclipse is my next review. Hurrah in the fact I don’t need to spend too much time reviewing this. I finished my review of the previous Twilight film by saying “Is teenage pouting and men running around with their shirts off really a basis for a film? Adjust rating either way depending on your view of this statement”, and you can pretty much read the same for Eclipse. I also said that watching the previous film with devotees is akin to an audience participation movie. However, even the teens with Robert Pattison and Kirsten Stewart posters on their walls won’t mutter much through Eclipse. Aside from a few additional plot points we basically have a film which is 2 hours of a love triangle. Hardly thrilling stuff. It’s no exaggeration to say almost an hour could have been chopped off this film and you would have have had the same storyline intact still. On the plus side, there are a few darker moments than before and the film does again keeps the series sense of humour intact. However, with many scenes that don’t propel the plot onwards, you'll definitely be a believer that this is a saga alright.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Even if you’re a fan boy (or more likely fan girl) you’ll struggle to say this is a success. Unbelievers will have broken out the garlic a long while ago anyway. Rating: 4/10

Please Give

Writer / Director Nicole Holofcener’s Please Give begins with shots of numerous women’s breasts as they undertake mammograms. The reason being that one of the characters (Rebecca (Rebecca Hall)) works as a breast cancer radiology technician. It’s obviously not done in a sexual way, but it’s hardly a great way to start a film. I suppose you could say it’s a talking point, which might possibly had been the idea in the first place. The film itself is about Kate (Catherine Keener) and Alex (Oliver Platt), a couple who buy furniture from estate sales and the sell them at a profit at their furniture shop. They also live next door to the grandmother of Rebecca and Mary (Amanda Peet). The drama concerns a number of areas but it’s Keeners Kate that mostly resembles the lead role as she battles with her guilt concerning her job and struggles to maintain a bond with her husband and teenage daughter. There is a strong cast in this film but, with the exception of Rebecca, all the characters they play are pretty uninviting. This is problem for the film as do you really care about hypocrites, adulterers and narcissists? At least you can say the actors do their jobs well, as you really won’t like their characters. Script wise there really isn’t anything special going on here and Holofcener’s stale direction does little to bring it to life. Overall, this is a drama meant to make you think and reflect about your own life. To be fair it does do that at certain points. However, there’s a good chance it’ll also make you think about the money you've just wasted watching it.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Too shallow by far, but at least the acting stops it from being a complete disaster. Rating: 4/10.

The Collector

Sometime Saw screenwriter Marcus Dunstan moves up to directing duties with The Collector, a film with a heavy passing resemblance to that particular franchise. Unsurprisingly, the film suffers from the same faults as the recent crop of Saw films in that gore features prominently over story. This is actually a shame, as this had the potential to be a nasty little shocker, but all tension disappears fairly early on once the claret starts to flow. Things get off to a promising start though with a neat nervy opening and an effective visual and audio assaulting credit sequence. We then are introduced to one of the main characters of the story, Arkin (Josh Stewart), an ex-con who due to a convenient plot device decides to burgle a rich families secluded house whilst they are away. He gets a shock though when a shadowy figure known as The Collector also enters the house and Arkin soon finds himself in a literal house of pain. To say anymore would be to spoil the somewhat ludicrous plot, but if you’re a fan of torture traps designed to maim and kill (Head in a bear-trap? Yes please!) you’ll be in for a treat, so to speak. Unfortunately, the aforementioned plot is a major sticking point. Obviously you suspend disbelief as much as you can when you’re watching a film but this is so implausible due to the countless plot holes it just becomes frustrating. Someone like Alexandre Aja may have done something better with this. Instead we’re left with a film that is somewhat unfairly dumped into the torture porn category, and despite Stewart’s decent performance, it doesn’t do itself many favours all the way up until the annoying and predictable denouement.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
After a promising start, this sadly gets worse minute by minute. Things don’t bode well for the mooted sequel. Rating: 4/10.

Killers

They say film critics derive more pleasure from reviewing a bad film than a good film. I’m not sure I agree with that because not only do you have to sit through dross like Killers but then you have to waste further minutes of your life reviewing it. The fact that Killers was not screened for critics before its initial release is hardly a surprise. They knew they had a turkey on their hands and were obviously delaying the negative reviews for as long as possible. So, is it really that bad? For me, I just found it tired and clichéd. Where is the originality going in these types of films? Fans would say why fix a winning formula no doubt, but is this formula really a winner when it’s this unimaginative? Killers is a True Lies-ish tale of Spencer (Ashton Kutcher), a contract killer, who after having enough of that particular profession, packs it all in and settles down with non-risk taker Jen (Katherine Heigl), who is oblivious to his past. However, before long a number of Spencer’s old colleagues are after him due to a bounty on his head. So, thrills and laughs abound then? Not a bit of it and the chemistry between Kutcher and Heigl is less than zero. Heigl has just about avoided popping up in rubbish like this so far so we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I’m sure there is an audience for this film somewhere, but I’d assume they have AK posters on their walls.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Ashton Kutcher as a contract killer? At least there’s one laugh in the film then. Rating: 2/10

Whatever Works

Despite being one of the most well know people in North America, Larry David has had a minimal big screen presence. Hardly surprising though when you consider the acclaim and fortune he has amassed from both Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm over the years. However, David takes the leading role in Woody Allen’s latest film, Whatever Works, Allen’s return to his beloved New York after a number of years shooting in Europe. In the film David plays Boris Yellnikoff a misanthropic professor who believes himself to be more of a professor of life and gives his, usually negative, advice about everyone and everything to whoever is in earshot. This includes Melody (Evan Rachel Wood) a 21 year old runaway who appears on Boris’s doorstep. Reluctantly taking her in, the storyline that unfolds is then somewhat unbelievable, but at least it’s not predictable. Some critics have pointed out that David is merely playing Allen in the film. Well, duh! Allen’s been playing “himself” in films for years (or at least the accepted film version of himself) so it’s hardly a surprise that Yellnikoff bears a resemblance to Alvy Singer, Isacc et al. Allen has David break the fourth wall on a number of occasions during the film. Usually a risky exercise in films, but it compliments Boris’s perception of life well. He has to tell everyone his opinions, including somewhat riskily, even giving the cinema audience a dressing down at the start. The one major blocking point for this film is whether Boris can garner any sympathy with the audience at all. If you don’t care much for the main character you’re going to struggle. On this front the side characters in the film all get decent screen time and story arcs, which come at just the right times throughout the film as a nice break from Boris’s constant moaning. In fact some of Boris’s patronising of Melody becomes repetitive quite quickly and is scarcely credible towards the end of the film. The old gag concerning Allen is about people preferring to his “earlier funny films” and it’s interesting to note that Allen wrote some of this screenplay in the late 1970’s. Does that explain why a lot of one-liners find the mark? Whatever it is, though there’s no zingers here, there’s enough to get you laughing on a number of occasions, though the ending of the film does seem to contradict what Boris has been preaching for the previous 90mins.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
David is great. Rachel Wood is even better. This isn’t early Woody, but it’s definitely funny Woody. Rating: 7/10.

Brooklyn’s Finest

Brooklyn’s Finest is a three hander following an increasingly desperate for money cop (Ethan Hawke), a tired of life veteran cop on the verge of retirement (Richard Gere) and an undercover cop (Don Cheadle) who is starting to have difficulty in separating his real life from his covert role. The first thing you may think on reading the above is that there isn’t much originality character wise here, and you’d be right. It’s also stereotypes galore on the criminal front. However, all is not lost due to a combination of decent acting, fair direction and a smart screenplay. Director Antoine Fuqua has a surprisingly varied back catalogue in terms of genre, surprising only in the sense that when you hear Fuqua’s name you immediately think Training Day and not much else. Unsurprisingly though it’s this film to which Brooklyn’s Finest bares a strong resemblance, from it’s inclusion of Hawke to Fuqua’s use of blue and grey colouring. All three main parts are well acted, adding meat to the bones of their stock characters. However, how much you engage with them is another matter altogether. There aren’t many likable characters in this film and it’s heavy going at times in terms of subject matter and length. If you stay with it though, Michael C. Martin’s screenplay is a twisty little number and Fuqua does well to evenly balance all three storylines in terms of dramatic impact, if not screen time. This includes a smart scene towards the end where all three storylines briefly meet though the main characters are all oblivious of each other. Overall, this is a firm if not overly memorable entry into this type of genre, but the nagging feeling exists that if Fuqua had cropped a few scenes this would have been a much tighter package indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This is pretty much what you would expect from a Fuqua film, hit and miss but strong acting throughout. Rating: 7/10.

Wild Target

I usually try and avoid trailers for want of spoilers, but after seeing the trailer for Wild Target I was looking forward to seeing it as it came across as a potential little gem. Well, all I can say is well done to the editor of the trailer cos you had me fooled pal. It obviously strives to be an A Fish Called Wanda clone but this effort is severely lacking the sharpness of that screen play and the film has an overall cheap look and feel to it. In the film Bill Nighy stars as Victor, a ruthless hitman who finds himself drawn to his latest target, a con woman called Rose (Emily Blunt). After sparing her life, then saving her life (as you do), they find themselves on the run from Rose’s last mark, played by Rupert Everett, and his cronies. The introduction of Rupert Grint as a possible apprentice is pointless and superfluous to the main strand of the storyline, that of the growing relationship between Victor and Rose. In terms of that, loves does move in mysterious ways, but their blossoming romance never convinces, not helped by the age gap. Martin Freeman also pops up as a rival assassin (Dixon) and though it’s a paper thin part Freeman does his best to portray him as ruthless and sadistic. However, the tone of the film is is uneven throughout and some scenes of comic violence against people just come across as plain cruel. Throw in an awful soundtrack and lacklustre directing from the usually safe if not spectacular Jonathan Lynn and you have a film on which even Victor himself would perform a mercy killing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Off Target, more like. Rating: 3/10